On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:32:04 +0000 you said:
I am aware that certain sensitivities and frustrations are involved here, on all "sides". Please try to keep this in mind when reading what follows. If you find anything offensive, please consider that it may be due to simple clumsiness or ignorance on my part, rather than to antagonism or malice.
There is an opportunity here to resolve, rather than to exacerbate problems.
All understood and I enjoy these discussions over some of the unmoderated lists and can take all criticism seriously since I respect the people here - as opposed to unknown email kings who spit out 20 pieces of garbage a day on gtld-discuss.
There was unanimous agreement by the participants that RIPE should nominate a European candidate to fill an iPOC seat.
This action item thus originates not in an attempt to impose a "European" agenda, but from what was understood as an invitation to become more involved.
Which I think is what IAB resolved by appointing Patrik.
I believe that the process is intrinsically -- certainly not exclusively -- political, and that the political dimension needs to be recognised rather than dismissed. The Internet has become a key element in the globalisation of commerce, and is therefore quite legitimately the object of attention for governments and trade organisations.
Once we let the Internet be dominated by "political" interests - then it is the end of the Internet as we know it. How many of you think CIDR would have come off, if the "political dimension" had been thrown into the equation? How many small ISPs would have screamed that CIDR and non-portable addresses hurt their business? How many European ISPs would have run to the EC and complained, stating the CIDR benefits only Sprint, MCI and UUnet?
I am still missing some fundamentals. From putting the questions to others, I understand I am far from alone. The following questions indicate the areas in which I would find more information helpful.
What problems are understood to be addressed by the proposals made in the gTLD-MoU and associated documents ?
To what extent are these problems expected to be solved by the new procedures ?
Unless there are specific entrance criteria for registration in each of the new gTLD's, how will they not become mere clones of .COM ?
Your questions require a fairly large reply and perhaps best is a face to face discussion, which I hope the iPOC can provide to RIPE.
d) Europe has 2 people currently sitting on iPOC: Geert Glas, appointed by INTA (a lawyer) and Patrik Falstrom appointed by the IAB (a techie from Tele2). How do these people *not* serve a *European* perspective?
Here, Hank, I think you beg the question which you have just raised.
The "Europe" which "has 2 people sitting on the iPOC" is that "Europe" (if any) to which these people are listening, and which they are keeping informed, and whose interests they are working to protect. I particularly avoid saying, "whose interests they represent", as I believe that if adequate protection is afforded actual representation may not need to be an issue. So far, this "Europe" is neither the "Europe of RIPE" nor the "Europe of the Commission".
This implies that the current members from IAB, ISOC and IANA represent USA interests. What I don't understand how there is a specific "European" interest that is different than a USA or Japanese interest in regards to gTLDs. No one from Europe has ever fully explained this difference to me.
I think it would be really useful if you, Hank, or Geert Glas or Patrik Falstrom could join us in Amsterdam on Thursday. I realize that this may not be possible. I also realize that the engagement whose lack I keep decrying is a two-way process, and that I too ought perhaps have done more sooner to bring it about.
Not I. Perhaps Patrik. I am just an outsie observer at this point :-)
(Don't forget the WIPO and ITU reps who live and work in Geneva who also sit on the iPOC - and you get to a total of 4 resident Europeans currently on the iPOC - a number way out of proportion to Europe's size)
I really think this is a red herring. Residency is not the issue.
I don't think it is a red herring. If someone carries an EU passport, pays taxes in an EU country and has lived in an EU country for 12 years doesn't that qualify him/her to represent European interests?
Regards, Hank
The same, and very sincerely. I have a feeling that we may be involved here in the beginning of what I have sometimes heard called "a violent agreement".
I enjoy every minute. -Hank
Niall
-------- Logged at Sat Sep 20 23:14:51 MET DST 1997 ---------